I’m curious. After you did your “research” and exposed yourself to truth and saw the LDS’s lies or halfturths in the DOC and BOM etc., did you follow thru and research what God’s truth really was about the specific topics you felt lied to about? Or did you just give up and call all of God’s word a mere man made fabrication?

I already answered him briefly, but I think this deserves a post of its own with a little more detail because this is a really good question from the faithful Mormon perspective. I’ve been asked this a LOT, so I’ll do my best to answer sincerely and honestly rather than in my usually snarky tone.

1. Directly to the point of your question, the LDS church had 40 years to present “God’s truth” to me. I attended and taught in Primary, Priesthood, Sunday School, Seminary and Sacrament Meetings for ALL of that time without an inactive period. I find it curious to learn what some people consider “equal time”.

Let me repeat, in 40 years of having me as a captive audience not one Mormon lesson manual presented “God’s” side of Joseph Smith’s polygamous relationships with married women or 14 year old girls. Not one lesson manual discussed the Adam God theory, Law of Adoption, Blood Atonement, the Kinderhook plates, or Joseph Smith’s dubious “translation” method of putting his face in his hat… etc… I could go on… but the point is that I could study “anti-Mormon” literature for another 40 years and not even come close to the amount of opportunity that the Mormon church has had to present its side to me.

2. When you read my blog, the impression you could easily get is that I read some difficult material and threw in the towel overnight and said, “Well, then it’s not true!” That is certainly not how it happened. From the very first time something that made me go, “hmmm” to the day I confidently disbelieved was about a decade long period. The first eight years of that decade was probably just a series of things making me go, “hmmm” and me not doing anything about it. Once I started to actually check some things out I stuck almost exclusively to “faithful” sources until I ran into several experiences described in #3 and #4 below. And even then it took another 2 years of reading, checking and double-checking sources and quotes that I was certain had been taken out of context… until I concluded that the “faithful” explanations contained far more fabrications and half truths than the critics’.

3. Early on, my introduction to the difficult issues in Mormonism actually came from within what could be considered “faithful” sources. For example, I’d stumble upon a FARMS or FAIR article detailing the rebuttal argument to a critic’s “so called” facts. This most frequently was my introduction to the topic. I would read the apologists’ article and find it to be illogical and full of lies…and then I’d do more research to find out what actually sparked the rebuttal in the first place. This was how I was introduced to the Book of Mormon DNA issue for example. I remember specifically reading one of these articles that stated that it has never been a church teaching that the modern day native Americans were descended from the Book of Mormon Lamanites. Having grown up in the church I knew that to be a bold faced lie. It erased any credibility in that author’s argument thereafter. This was before I even knew about any DNA problems.

What it did from square one is tell me that church apologists were willing to lie and fabricate to maintain the essentials of their faith. Of course, they were writing to an audience that they thought was already in some stage of a faith crisis, so ANY shred of hope would provide that person with enough to cling onto. But for me it CREATED the faith crisis. I didn’t know anything about DNA or how it related to the Book of Mormon but I knew very well what the prophets had taught and what the vast majority of Mormons believed regarding the Lamanites.

4. Another problem I had with LDS sources or “faithful” explanations was their inconsistency. One “faithful” explanation for a particular issue sounded reasonable in a vacuum, but when you applied that same logic to another part of the gospel it fell apart.

Take your question for example. You imply that a person questioning Mormonism should research several varied sources before jumping to conclusions. But LDS missionaries regularly tell investigators to NOT seek out alternate sources when researching Mormonism. We often used the analogy “If you want to buy a Ford, you wouldn’t go to a Chevy dealer.” Not seeking out alternative explanations is regularly taught in LDS lessons. But suddenly if I discover something about DNA as it applies to LDS claims I shouldn’t take the word of a geneticist. I should circle back around and double-check what BYU religion professors have to say about it…

5. The truth should be laid out BEFORE extracting a lifelong commitment from someone. Do you get that? In my case that means before I was 8 years old. In the case of a convert that is before he/she is baptized. By not doing that, the LDS church has been untrustworthy and dishonest.

The onus for telling the truth is on the organization that claims to be the one and only true church on the face of the earth. The onus isn’t on the individual born and raised in the faith to go out digging and hunting to find out what really happened.

6. “Can I believe this?” and “Is this believable?” are two very different questions.

The answer to, “Can I believe this?” is almost always “Yes!” This is the question I believe most Mormons ask themselves. Humans can give themselves permission to believe just about anything.

“Is it believable” on the other hand requires taking a step back and approaching the topic from an independent perspective without assuming truth or falsehood. In scientific language that means developing a “null hypothesis.”

As I understand it, if you are honestly searching for truth on a particular topic you need to figure out the conditions and facts which would lead you to conclude falsehood. And this needs to be done ahead of time…before the fact-gathering and investigation.

To put it more simply, an honest investigator of Mormonism would need to decide, “It’s not true if _______”. Then whatever that statement was would have to be something universal that could be repeated by anyone and everyone with the same result. Most Mormons I know couldn’t ever perform this hypothetical mind exercise and clearly Mormon scholars don’t. They start with the conclusion and then twist and turn things to match their testimonies. I believe this is far from an honest search for truth.

At some point I made the decision that I would follow the truth no matter where it lead me…in or out of the church (definitely still hoping that it was IN).

Your question to me implies that I should have settled for, “Can I believe it?” by giving the Mormon church a second chance to give me a reason to believe by adjusting their claims, reformulating teachings and presenting a different angle to things I’d been learning for 40 years. I frankly don’t see why Mormonism deserves that reconsideration any more than Islam, Scientology, or the Moonies.

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

20 thoughts on “So You Want Me to Give Mormonism Another Chance to Explain?”

Aside from the groundless assertions that such and such book was written/inspired by any god, at some point people would have to ask themselves; ‘if there is a god but it commands/advocates/incites evil things, will I still worship it? And their answer to that question will tell others a lot more about them than any supposed scripture they like to quote can say.

It’s the difference between someone who advocates something because it is demonstably good rather than because he is afraid of what that ‘something’ might do to him if he refuses…

Wow, so many logical fallacies–so little time. I’m not sure that you really want to know the truth, but I accept your challenge. First, you say you haven’t heard “God’s side” of Joseph Smith’s polygamous relationship. Hmm, ever heard of D&C 132? THAT’s God side (what were you expecting–a personal visit?). D&C 132 no good? Okay, here is God again, but in the Bible: Gen. 32:22 and so on. Polygamy was often entered into by widely accepted biblical “good guys.” Next, complaints about JS’s translation method. Well, JS did not say that he translated this way–it was a third party who claimed to have looked passed the curtain, but assuming that he did–if God told JS to smear feces on his face to translate, then, hey, it’s GOD’S way of translating, not the community college way of translating (Indeed, using your logic: We all know that Christ is false because he cannot heal blindness by smearing mud one’s eyes!). The DNA argument: Okay, that one’s fair enough. Generally it is accepted that DNA analysis is sound science. But few critics explain that there was many hundreds of years after the Nephites passed on wherein other peoples could (yes, could) have come here and intermingled with those folks (or even established a pure, but non-Israelite culture), creating DNA profiles inconsistent with the Israel orgins. Heck, the darkening of the Manasseh Lamanites’ skin violates the rules of DNA too, so we don’t have to get to and “original source of people” argument to shake one’s faith. While I’m not saying that God changed the Indians’ DNA, I do feel that there is a scientific explanation to this. I take it on faith right now. BTW, while it’s fair to judge the Church by its leadership (somewhat); it is totally UNFAIR to judge it by an apologist who has no Church sanction. That’s what you did. Finally, where in the HELL has the Mormon Church “adjusted their claims?” Get a life on that one! As a missionary, I was serving during the “Salamander letter” debacle, and was asked repeatedly to explain it (sarcastically, of course). I just said, “I don’t know the answer, but I’m sure that there is one which will be revealed one day.” Sure enough, we later find that the Salamander letters were forged documents. Yeah, I could have quit my mission because Joseph Smith was a false prophet, but instead I reseted my faith on more than what was supposed to be concrete evidence at the time. I was vindicated.

It is always annoying when you can’t actually argue against something. I will leave, but I find it interesting that philosophy has no place in your thought process. You will never find the truth if you are not willing to actually think outside what science dictates as appropriate.
(If anyone wishes to discuss this further, I would not be opposed to e-mail at shematwater@yahoo.com.)

1. The only thing I can see that you were arguing against was intelligence
2. There wasn’t any “philosophy” in anything you said…just religious indoctrination
3. You are not willing to actually think outside what your religion dictates as appropriate.
4. My blog in not a place to argue anything. Arguments are for people who like to win…not learn.

I wasn’t arguing anything; I was discussing.
Yes, what I was discussing was philosophy, you just don’t want to admit it.
As to intelloigence, it is hard to argue against something that doesn’t seem to be present.
Now, I am willing to think many things outside my religion. What I am not willing to do is deny the truth that I know. You can call it indoctrination all you want, but it doesn’t change the truth.

If you weren’t indoctrinated you would have said, “What I am not willing to do is deny what I BELIEVE.” Using “know” based on flimsy feelings and with a blatant disregard for facts like you do pegs you as clearly indoctrinated.

I’ve come to the conclusion that shematwater is a Mormon troll and that we shouldn’t feed him/her any longer. It has been my experience that engaging in dialogue with such people is like banging one’s head against a brick wall. This person hasn’t come to understand, dialogue, learn or even really share at all. I’ve seen the same behavior by this person on other blogs where that sort of defense of the faith is more welcome or appropriate. After a lifetime of living with and actually being such a person, I no longer wish to engage with the behavior or the same old stale arguments that I grew up with and easily debunked after moments of actually thinking.

The sort of thinking above is like arguing with a Star Trek fan over the internal consistency of the Klingon language.

I would agree. But I have never claimed that, and neither does the LDS church. Matter is eternal and cannot be destroyed or created. Science has discovered this, and God has varified it. God did not create the universe out of nothing. He took of this eternal matter, which was in a raw and chaotic state, and organized it into the worlds that we can now detect.
The same is true for everything that existence. We are eternal beings, just as God is eternal, and just as matter is eternal.

To go back to the architect: It is illogical to say that there was no architect to build the structure, but it is also illogical to say that there was no material for the architect to build it from.

The universe has always existed in some form, but not always in this form. Because this form is organized it is more logical to believe that there was an organizer (God) than to say there wasn’t (and random chance is not an organizer, as organizing implies rational and intelligent thought). Just as the material of a building always existed, but not always as a building, and because of the organization of the building it is more logical to believe there was an organizer (architect) than to say there wasn’t.

True theology has never been wrong. False theology has several times, yes.

“Without an architect it makes perfect sense for science folks to explain the make-up of a structure.”

True, but the absense of an architect makes the very existence of the structure unbelievable. So you may assume there in no architect and be illogical from the start. I prefer to assume that there is one and seek him out for answers, as that is far more logical.

If you want to go that route, then I’m afraid you’ll also have to account for the ‘there must be an architect assumption’, else your position is in no way more (or even ‘as’) logical than the position that doesn’t presume to imagine that something undetectable by any empirical means must exist in order for something that definitely exist to exist. If the universe can’t have always existed in some form without having a ‘creator’, then the same must go for the ‘creator’. You can’t just cheat and say, oh, the creator self-created or has always existed, but the universe can’t… without presenting evidence or coherent logic to back that up. Might as well cut the ‘creator’ middle man out and attribute the self-creating/always existed quality to the universe. Much less complicated.

Just note that a scientific approach to faith will always fail to lead one to truth. Science can only explain science. It cannot explain theology.

For example, the DNA question: I have not really read any arguments for or against this dilemma, as it really doesn’t matter. Science may show that the DNA is not a match, and this does not cause any crisis of faith, because I know that God has the power to alter DNA as he sees fit.
The argument becomes a null issue because it is trying to use science to explain faith.

As to the questions, I always ask myself “Is this believable,” and the inevitable answer is always “The LDS church is more believable than anything else out there. of course, this still does not fully satisfy things, as faith is a large part.
(And yes, I know all the problems that you cited in this particular article.)

The problem with your “science cannot explain theology” theory is that theology has a long history of trying to explain scientific facts. It works both ways. If religion had stuck with non-verifiable spiritual stuff, your theory would have worked. But it hasn’t. It has always attempted to explain the natural world, which is of course the field science does very well with. Your example of the DNA issue is not a case where science tried to explain faith. It is an example where faith tried to encroach on the realm of science and got it horribly wrong.

My Faith in God hinges on him having all power and authority, as well as all truth, justice, mercy and every other attribute of deity to perfection. If he is unable to alter DNA for his purposes than he is not a God who has all power, nor does he have authority over nature, and thus he is not a God I can put my faith in.

As to theology explaining science, your logic is like telling the architect he can’t explain the process of building a structure because the foreman disagrees with him.
True science and true theology will always agree. However, man’s ability to discover and understand science will not always lead them to the truth, whereas truth theology will. In other words, science cannot tell you if God exists, but God can tell you what scientific truth is.

Having the ability to alter DNA would indeed make Him all-powerful. Actually using the ability would make Him a criminal and therefore not a just God you can put your faith in.

You logic ASSUMES from the get-go that there is an “architect”. Without an architect it makes perfect sense for science folks to explain the make-up of a structure.

And yes, “true science and theology” would theoretically always agree. Your problem is that you fail to recognize that when they don’t it has always been theology in error. Science has a built in mechanism for change when it’s wrong. Theology doesn’t … even though it’s been wrong so much in the past.

So, I was totally wrong on my assumption of who sjm is. Not only did I assume the comment came from a man, but I also assumed incorrectly that it came from a Mormon.

sjm is neither.

She actually e-mailed a very sweet, off-line e-mail explaining the background to her question. I won’t go into all the details, but suffice it to say that I apologize and confess to jumping to conclusions.

Her comment came from the place of a Christian asking me if I’d continued a search for God after discrediting Mormonism. Mormonism doesn’t own the belief in God, it appears. Her e-mail to me wasn’t self-righteous or judgmental at all and I fully respect the place she is coming from in wondering if I’ve given God an adequate chance. I don’t have a problem with her question or the way she framed it to me.

I suppose she’ll still conclude that I haven’t given the God she considers the true God an adequate chance. I believe I have. Or, He’ll at least give me another 40 years to recover from my interaction with the Mormon God before I have any desire to seek Him out…

I wish sjm well and I hope she comes back to my blog to comment in the future.